I'll believe it when Obama is signing legislation into law, until then it's yet another "Look! We're ready to compromise! We're actually willing to suggest that a Walton heir transferring more than $100 billion to an offshore Cayman Islands tax-free shelter should have to use the U.S. Postal Service to get the receipt -- once! So, this means we can eliminate the mortgage interest deduction and cancel Social Security!"

This is all about trying to raise taxes minimally and instead gut medicare and social security. Nothing more, nothing less.

Right now, the GOP is a lot that guy that has cheated on his GF about 15 times in a row, been blatantly caught in flagrante delicto all 15 times, and is still trying to get the GF to sleep with him: desperate, a little pathetic, a little funny, and absolutely clueless about why no one is buying the same old lines that used to work like a charm.

I think he's done. A lot of the rest will smell blood in the water now, sense his weakness, and jump ship as well. Grover, you had a good run, unfortunately.

It should've been done when HWBush said something like "Norquist? Who the hell is that?"

That was my impression too when I first heard his name. Though I figured I just wasn't educated enough in the who's-who of politics. It wouldn't have been the first time a 'big name' had eluded my politickin' radar.

Mr. Coffee Nerves:I'll believe it when Obama is signing legislation into law, until then it's yet another "Look! We're ready to compromise! We're actually willing to suggest that a Walton heir transferring more than $100 billion to an offshore Cayman Islands tax-free shelter should have to use the U.S. Postal Service to get the receipt -- once! So, this means we can eliminate the mortgage interest deduction and cancel Social Security!"

Therin lies the problem. We need to raise the tax rates. We've already done the cuts. Taking away deductions from the poor /middleclass will hurt the economy more.

The only way Norquist gets outta this one is to make an example out of someone. And he's gotta rip the innards out of someone important to the GOP...if he doesn't step up RIGHT NOW and viciously defend his turf....then the GOP will toss him aside like a broken Ken doll and down the memory hole he goes. within 4 years nobody will ever remember who the hell he was.

Either way this is a win/win for the Democrats. if Norquist sacrifices a prominent Republican in order to save his position...then the end result is to weaken the GOP and give the Democrats a gift. But if Norquist doesn't defend himself then his entire philosophy gets flushed. Which again is a win for the Democrats, since the GOP would be one step closer to a workable compromise.

Weaver95:The only way Norquist gets outta this one is to make an example out of someone. And he's gotta rip the innards out of someone important to the GOP...if he doesn't step up RIGHT NOW and viciously defend his turf....then the GOP will toss him aside like a broken Ken doll and down the memory hole he goes. within 4 years nobody will ever remember who the hell he was.

Either way this is a win/win for the Democrats. if Norquist sacrifices a prominent Republican in order to save his position...then the end result is to weaken the GOP and give the Democrats a gift. But if Norquist doesn't defend himself then his entire philosophy gets flushed. Which again is a win for the Democrats, since the GOP would be one step closer to a workable compromise.

Problem is that his main threat is to go after someone's reelection chances and that's 2-6 years down the line AND not a sure success.

For that matter, has Norquist ever put his money where his mouth is? I mean, does he actually put money out supporting candidates at all or does he just threaten to primary them?

"I would be very much opposed to raising tax rates, but I do believe we can close a lot of loopholes," the party's 2008 standard-bearer said on "Fox News Sunday." He said that could be achieved by imposing "a limit on the amount of deduction on charitable giving, a limit on the amount you can take on your home loan mortgage deduction."

Translation: I won't raise tax rates on the top 1%, but I'll make sure middle class families can deduct less from their mortgage.

The Democrats want more revenues via taxes and those increased revenues paid for by the wealthy so the wealthy carry a higher load (because they can handle it). The Republicans wanted no new revenues and indeed the current revenues carried more by the lower/middle class (because that is more fair). This great Republican concession, the great compromise is "I guess we're okay with more revenues, so long as the lower/middle class pay for it."

These guys are talking out of their asses. I note that most of them say they oppose higher taxes and only support closing loopholes or cutting deductions. Maybe in the Republic of Derpistan this is big news. In The Real World this is a non-story.

Meet the "RINO Seven" who have decided that you need more than a second grade education in order to deal with the tax code they have to drop the position that they were so gung-ho about a year ago because they will lose in the primary if they keep this shiat up.

A year ago, they allowed the country's credit rating to drop because they held firm to their "principles". Now, fark that shiat, lets raise taxes...oh, and while we're at it, we LOVE Hispanics.

lennavan:The Democrats want more revenues via taxes and those increased revenues paid for by the wealthy so the wealthy carry a higher load (because they can handle it). The Republicans wanted no new revenues and indeed the current revenues carried more by the lower/middle class (because that is more fair). This great Republican concession, the great compromise is "I guess we're okay with more revenues, so long as the lower/middle class pay for it."

Great.

How there are any Republicans making less than 200K is beyond me. Oh, right, social issues are important.... you might be poor on Earth for 80 years, but your soul will be rich for eternity by listening to Supply Side Jesus.

"I would be very much opposed to raising tax rates, but I do believe we can close a lot of loopholes," the party's 2008 standard-bearer said on "Fox News Sunday." He said that could be achieved by imposing "a limit on the amount of deduction on charitable giving, a limit on the amount you can take on your home loan mortgage deduction."

Translation: I won't raise tax rates on the top 1%, but I'll make sure middle class families can deduct less from their mortgage.

"I'll also take away the tax incentive to help people in need through charitable contributions. But, I'm sure we'll find a way for Mitt to write off his donations to the Mormons."

Weaver95:The only way Norquist gets outta this one is to make an example out of someone. And he's gotta rip the innards out of someone important to the GOP...if he doesn't step up RIGHT NOW and viciously defend his turf....then the GOP will toss him aside like a broken Ken doll and down the memory hole he goes. within 4 years nobody will ever remember who the hell he was.

Either way this is a win/win for the Democrats. if Norquist sacrifices a prominent Republican in order to save his position...then the end result is to weaken the GOP and give the Democrats a gift. But if Norquist doesn't defend himself then his entire philosophy gets flushed. Which again is a win for the Democrats, since the GOP would be one step closer to a workable compromise.

Satanic_Hamster:Problem is that his main threat is to go after someone's reelection chances and that's 2-6 years down the line AND not a sure success.

For that matter, has Norquist ever put his money where his mouth is? I mean, does he actually put money out supporting candidates at all or does he just threaten to primary them?

yeah, it's not looking good for Grover. he's at least 2 years out from a retributive strike and the GOP is looking for a scapegoat. Remember - Khorne cares not from whence the blood flows, he cares only that it should flow. Grover's skull too is welcomed by the blood god.

Darth_Lukecash:Mr. Coffee Nerves: I'll believe it when Obama is signing legislation into law, until then it's yet another "Look! We're ready to compromise! We're actually willing to suggest that a Walton heir transferring more than $100 billion to an offshore Cayman Islands tax-free shelter should have to use the U.S. Postal Service to get the receipt -- once! So, this means we can eliminate the mortgage interest deduction and cancel Social Security!"

Therin lies the problem. We need to raise the tax rates. We've already done the cuts. Taking away deductions from the poor /middleclass will hurt the economy more.

Personally, I don't think we need to raise taxes or cut spending until the economy improves-and then, once it does, do both gradually. I'm a Keynesian in this manner.

That is, when the economy sucks (like it still does), the government should deficit spend like a mofo. Once the economy is roaring, the government should both raise taxes and cut spending to slow it down, both to make the ups and downs less dramatic and to pay off the deficit spending during the bad times.

Once unemployment is in the 5-7% range, then is the time to (gradually) cut spending and raise taxes. But not until then.

As for which taxes to raise, raising them on the rich is obvious (as this both affects the economy the least, plus they can afford it more), taking the rates back to Clinton-era level, and eliminating the Social Security tax income cut off (IE, you only pay Social Security taxes on the first $110,100 you make a year-a clearly regressive policy).

"I would be very much opposed to raising tax rates, but I do believe we can close a lot of loopholes," the party's 2008 standard-bearer said on "Fox News Sunday." He said that could be achieved by imposing "a limit on the amount of deduction on charitable giving, a limit on the amount you can take on your home loan mortgage deduction."

Translation: I won't raise tax rates on the top 1%, but I'll make sure middle class families can deduct less from their mortgage.

How do you arrive at that translation? If you limit deductions on charitable giving, that's obviously going to impact wealthier taxpayers to a greater degree (also a pretty silly deduction to focus on) and have you seen any figures on what the limit on mortgage deduction would be?

Saxby Chambliss will always be "that piece of penis-eel-anus sucking hooker pus that called Bona Fide War Hero Max Cleland's patriotism into question." That he's exhibiting fewer signs of TBI is encouraging, but rather like handing a step-stool to a man stuck at the bottom of the Grand Canyon.

"I would be very much opposed to raising tax rates, but I do believe we can close a lot of loopholes," the party's 2008 standard-bearer said on "Fox News Sunday." He said that could be achieved by imposing "a limit on the amount of deduction on charitable giving, a limit on the amount you can take on your home loan mortgage deduction."

Translation: I won't raise tax rates on the top 1%, but I'll make sure middle class families can deduct less from their mortgage.

How do you arrive at that translation? If you limit deductions on charitable giving, that's obviously going to impact wealthier taxpayers to a greater degree (also a pretty silly deduction to focus on) and have you seen any figures on what the limit on mortgage deduction would be?

I think he's insinuating that the lack of specifics from the GOP is ominous towards the middle class. Maybe they just want to wait until after Christmas to spring the surprise details.

"I would be very much opposed to raising tax rates, but I do believe we can close a lot of loopholes," the party's 2008 standard-bearer said on "Fox News Sunday." He said that could be achieved by imposing "a limit on the amount of deduction on charitable giving, a limit on the amount you can take on your home loan mortgage deduction."

Translation: I won't raise tax rates on the top 1%, but I'll make sure middle class families can deduct less from their mortgage.

How do you arrive at that translation? If you limit deductions on charitable giving, that's obviously going to impact wealthier taxpayers to a greater degree

More than the soup kitchens, animal shelters, and institutions that help Veterans?

I think we need to do all: raise taxes, change the tax code and possibly change entitlement programs. The problem is that raising/cutting taxes on the middle class hurts the enomony short-term, while tax code/entitlement changes will only help long-term.

The best way to get this done, to my mind:

1) For now, raise taxes on the wealthy and maintain current tax cuts for the middle class.2) Review/revise tax rates if and only if congress can then come to a real, workable, practical deal on the tax code and entilements.

And you all are way more pessimistic and cynical than I am. I think at least some repubs have seen the writing on the wall, are finally taking a hard look at their own ratings and trying to find an 'honorable' way out of the corner they've painted themselves into.

"I would be very much opposed to raising tax rates, but I do believe we can close a lot of loopholes," the party's 2008 standard-bearer said on "Fox News Sunday." He said that could be achieved by imposing "a limit on the amount of deduction on charitable giving, a limit on the amount you can take on your home loan mortgage deduction."

Translation: I won't raise tax rates on the top 1%, but I'll make sure middle class families can deduct less from their mortgage.

I dunno-I think there could be an agreement here where such deductions would be eliminated only for rich taxpayers. However, I don't like eliminating the charitable deduction for the rich, as that would cause many charities to go out of business as rich people donate less, ultimately hurting the poor. Eliminating the home loan mortgage deduction on the rich is fine, but interest rates are so low right now that it barely matters. You'll need a lot more than that.

"I would be very much opposed to raising tax rates, but I do believe we can close a lot of loopholes," the party's 2008 standard-bearer said on "Fox News Sunday." He said that could be achieved by imposing "a limit on the amount of deduction on charitable giving, a limit on the amount you can take on your home loan mortgage deduction."

Translation: I won't raise tax rates on the top 1%, but I'll make sure middle class families can deduct less from their mortgage.

How do you arrive at that translation? If you limit deductions on charitable giving, that's obviously going to impact wealthier taxpayers to a greater degree (also a pretty silly deduction to focus on) and have you seen any figures on what the limit on mortgage deduction would be?

I think he's insinuating that the lack of specifics from the GOP is ominous towards the middle class. Maybe they just want to wait until after Christmas to spring the surprise details.

well, the charitable giving bit is obviously more "optional" than the home mortgage deduction - you save more money by not giving at all. I can't imagine a limit on mortgage deductions being such that impacts the middle class to any significant degree.

"I would be very much opposed to raising tax rates, but I do believe we can close a lot of loopholes," the party's 2008 standard-bearer said on "Fox News Sunday." He said that could be achieved by imposing "a limit on the amount of deduction on charitable giving, a limit on the amount you can take on your home loan mortgage deduction."

Translation: I won't raise tax rates on the top 1%, but I'll make sure middle class families can deduct less from their mortgage.

How do you arrive at that translation? If you limit deductions on charitable giving, that's obviously going to impact wealthier taxpayers to a greater degree

More than the soup kitchens, animal shelters, and institutions that help Veterans?

No, they would be adversely impacted. That's why I said it is a silly deduction to limit. We're talking about tax bills though.

witzend52:Did Bush 41 sign the Norquist pledge and if so, was that a significant reason for his defeat in 1992? How about Dubya, did he sign the pledge? I have no internet skills so I must ask.

I don't think the pledge was around then, but Bush 41 did announce "Read my lips-no new taxes" (which amounts to the same thing) and then signed some into law anyways and that was considered to hurt him politically, although probably wasn't the reason he lost.

coeyagi:lennavan: The Democrats want more revenues via taxes and those increased revenues paid for by the wealthy so the wealthy carry a higher load (because they can handle it). The Republicans wanted no new revenues and indeed the current revenues carried more by the lower/middle class (because that is more fair). This great Republican concession, the great compromise is "I guess we're okay with more revenues, so long as the lower/middle class pay for it."

Great.

How there are any Republicans making less than 200K is beyond me. Oh, right, social issues are important.... you might be poor on Earth for 80 years, but your soul will be rich for eternity by listening to Supply Side Jesus.

I don't actually think most Republican voters realize they are voting against their own economic interests.

lennavan:I don't actually think most Republican voters realize they are voting against their own economic interests.

I don't think they care. I see nothing surprising in Red Staters who are notorious for setting aside all sorts of logic and long-term considerations in favor of meth and abstinence-only education to be willing to put aside their obvious financial best interests in favor of racism and Jesus.

skullkrusher:Headso: skullkrusher: Headso: skullkrusher: I can't imagine a limit on mortgage deductions being such that impacts the middle class to any significant degree.

Someone who just purchased a fairly modest home could have 10,000 dollars in deduction on their first several years of the loan.

and what is the proposed limit?

I don't know, I read an article saying that it was a 500k hard limit on the cost of the home and I have read others that said there were limits on the tax deduction itself.

wouldn't it be a limit on the size of the loan on which you can deduct interest? In any case, what is McCain's suggestion?

Yeah, that's what I meant to say, a 500k hard limit on the loan amount... I don't know what McCain wants, I remember Romney saying something about a 17k limit but I think that was a total limit for all deductions.

lennavan:coeyagi: lennavan: The Democrats want more revenues via taxes and those increased revenues paid for by the wealthy so the wealthy carry a higher load (because they can handle it). The Republicans wanted no new revenues and indeed the current revenues carried more by the lower/middle class (because that is more fair). This great Republican concession, the great compromise is "I guess we're okay with more revenues, so long as the lower/middle class pay for it."

Great.

How there are any Republicans making less than 200K is beyond me. Oh, right, social issues are important.... you might be poor on Earth for 80 years, but your soul will be rich for eternity by listening to Supply Side Jesus.

I don't actually think most Republican voters realize they are voting against their own economic interests.

I think many Republicans believe they can vote for their paternal betters, and receive benediction in return.

NewWorldDan:Could someone please expling to good ol' loveable Grover that the issue is spending and not taxes? Thanks to deficit spending, taxes have already been raised, they just haven't been collected yet.

Grover Norquist belongs to the "drown the baby in the bathtub" school of fiscal planning. Basically, the idea is that you let the debt grow large enough to destroy the country (i.e., fill the tub), and then you let the country drown to death in the debt. And then after the country is completely destroyed, a new perfect utopia with rainbows and flowers and dancing unicorns will take its place.

The "never raise revenues under any conditions" is not intended to balance the budget, and it is absolutely not intended to save the economy from some sort of credit collapse. The intention is to burn it all down so that they can start over.

And no, I'm not kidding about this at all. This is honestly what Grover Norquist actually believes.

// anyone who has ever been in any type of IT position is familiar with the type of people who don't think anything is worth fixing, and just want to throw everything out and start over/// anyone who has ever been in an IT management position for more than a few years knows the result of throwing out something that has worked for years and trying to replace it with a new thing built from scratch.

"I would be very much opposed to raising tax rates, but I do believe we can close a lot of loopholes," the party's 2008 standard-bearer said on "Fox News Sunday." He said that could be achieved by imposing "a limit on the amount of deduction on charitable giving, a limit on the amount you can take on your home loan mortgage deduction."

Translation: I won't raise tax rates on the top 1%, but I'll make sure middle class families can deduct less from their mortgage.

I dunno-I think there could be an agreement here where such deductions would be eliminated only for rich taxpayers. However, I don't like eliminating the charitable deduction for the rich, as that would cause many charities to go out of business as rich people donate less, ultimately hurting the poor. Eliminating the home loan mortgage deduction on the rich is fine, but interest rates are so low right now that it barely matters. You'll need a lot more than that.

Cythraul:I think he's done. A lot of the rest will smell blood in the water now, sense his weakness, and jump ship as well. Grover, you had a good run, unfortunately.

Agreed. His threat of "we'll launch a primary challenge at you in the next election if you violate the pledge" has vary narrow limits. After seeing how much money is needed for an election campaign these days, he could effectively do what...2 or 3 maybe simultaneously? If a bunch of them bailed he'd be totally farked. He'd have to pick and choose or spread himself so thin as to lose them all. All they'd have to do is stick together -- which we've seen them do before.

However, the difficulty is that they need to do it for the good of the country instead of the good of the party.

lennavan:coeyagi: lennavan: The Democrats want more revenues via taxes and those increased revenues paid for by the wealthy so the wealthy carry a higher load (because they can handle it). The Republicans wanted no new revenues and indeed the current revenues carried more by the lower/middle class (because that is more fair). This great Republican concession, the great compromise is "I guess we're okay with more revenues, so long as the lower/middle class pay for it."

Great.

How there are any Republicans making less than 200K is beyond me. Oh, right, social issues are important.... you might be poor on Earth for 80 years, but your soul will be rich for eternity by listening to Supply Side Jesus.

I don't actually think most Republican voters realize they are voting against their own economic interests.

They don't, I remember on election night a woman said that the reason she voted for R*Money was because "she was religious and pro-life"